The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on March 4, 2008 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Pearson, Filippi, Walker, Jasparro, Blackburn and Richard were present.  Commissioner Preiss recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Lisa Krapf of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Walker and seconded by Commissioners Blackburn, Richard and Jasparro to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of an April 25, 2007 inspection report compiled by the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshals Office during the March 4, 2008 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Boards findings, such as correction of a deficiency by the Applicant, shall be noted herein. 
	Any deficiency understood by the Board to have been corrected, which is not so corrected, shall be immediately corrected by the Applicant.  The term approved, as used herein, shall be understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in the State Fire Code, or as approved in particular by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (the State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1-12.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office.  
	13.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 13 by removing the non-conforming hold-open devices.  However, in order to avoid a repetition of this deficiency, the Board grants the Providence Fire Marshal's office the authority to require magnetic hold-open devices on the cited doors to the cafeteria, gymnasium and auditorium in the event it is determined that they are held open by non-compliant devices in the future.  
	14-16.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 14, 15 and 16 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office.
	17.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance until the conclusion of the 2008 spring break in April of 2008 in order to correct deficiency 17 by providing this facility with approved operational emergency lighting.
	18-26.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office.
	27.  During the March 4, 2008 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant was utilizing I-beams as barriers around the oil fill tank instead of bollards.  Accordingly, the Board directs the Applicant to correct this deficiency at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office within a timetable established by that office.  Finally, as with the other school cases heard on March 4, 2008, the Board shall maintain this as an open file in the event that the Applicant and/or the Providence Fire Marshal's office wishes to return to the Board for additional relief and/or clarification.

STATUS OF DECISION AND APPEAL RIGHTS
	This Decision represents a comprehensive, integrated plan of fire safety for the above-captioned facility under the above-cited use or occupancy.  Accordingly, every variance granted is conditioned upon the Applicants timely and continued compliance with all of the directives of the Board. Every variance granted is further conditioned upon the continued use or occupancy of this facility under the above-cited classification reviewed by the Board.  (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-17).
	Failure of the Applicant to initially comply with the full Decision of the Board, within the stated time frame, shall void all variances granted herein.  (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-18.)  In the event of complete, timely and continued compliance with the full Decision of the Board, the above cited variances shall be deemed to have vested in the above-captioned facility.  As long as this facility is in continued compliance with the full Decision of the Board, the above-cited variances shall remain with this facility in the absence of any change in use or occupancy mandating review under a separate classification of the Fire Code or a revision of the above-cited classification.  (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-19).  
Such changes in use or occupancy of this facility, or failure to continually comply with the Boards Decision shall void all variances granted under the above-cited use or occupancy.  If such change creates a new use or occupancy as outlined in R.I.G.L. 23-28.1-6, all variances granted under the original use or occupancy are void and this facility shall be reviewed under the newly created use or occupancy.  (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-20).
	The Applicant may appeal the Boards Decision, within thirty (30) days of the mailing date of this Decision, by commencing an action against the State Fire Marshal in the Sixth division of the District Court.  Commencement of such an action does not operate as an automatic stay of this Decision [R.I.G.L. 42-35-15(c)].